Ontario civil | Contracts
INTERPRETATION
Phrase “including GST” did not imply discount to appellant
Appellant appealed application judge’s interpretation of contract. Appellant was Indian Band. Respondent provided fundraising services to clients such as appellant. Respondent contracted with appellant to solicit donations. Contract provided that respondent would be paid fee equal to 15%, including GST of gross amount of donations raised for appellant. Appellant was exempted from paying GST on services provided to it. Service provider to appellant was not required to collect GST from it. Dispute arose. Appellant argued that GST constituted deduction from 15% it was required to pay while respondent claimed that “including GST” meant that GST payable on services to appellant was zero because of exemption. Application judge agreed with respondent’s interpretation. Appeal dismissed. Phrase “including GST” referred to GST that client had to pay for services, which given appellant’s tax exempt status was zero. Phrase “including GST” did not imply discount to appellant. Application judge was correct to find that language of contract was clear and that respondent read it correctly.
Global Learning Group Inc. v. Eskasoni First Nation (May. 16, 2013, Ont. C.A., M. Rosenberg J.A., S.T. Goudge J.A., and M. Tulloch J.A., File No. CA C56153) 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 693.
Phrase “including GST” did not imply discount to appellant
Appellant appealed application judge’s interpretation of contract. Appellant was Indian Band. Respondent provided fundraising services to clients such as appellant. Respondent contracted with appellant to solicit donations. Contract provided that respondent would be paid fee equal to 15%, including GST of gross amount of donations raised for appellant. Appellant was exempted from paying GST on services provided to it. Service provider to appellant was not required to collect GST from it. Dispute arose. Appellant argued that GST constituted deduction from 15% it was required to pay while respondent claimed that “including GST” meant that GST payable on services to appellant was zero because of exemption. Application judge agreed with respondent’s interpretation. Appeal dismissed. Phrase “including GST” referred to GST that client had to pay for services, which given appellant’s tax exempt status was zero. Phrase “including GST” did not imply discount to appellant. Application judge was correct to find that language of contract was clear and that respondent read it correctly.
Global Learning Group Inc. v. Eskasoni First Nation (May. 16, 2013, Ont. C.A., M. Rosenberg J.A., S.T. Goudge J.A., and M. Tulloch J.A., File No. CA C56153) 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 693.
